• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

I have a moral issue with liberal attitudes to gun ownership and would like to see the opinions of other people

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,489
3,250
126
When Obama became President and the Union was about to fall under the control of Black Kenyan nationals conservatives bought up I don't really know how many guns. I am pretty sure it was a lot.

Now that Trump is about to turn the US into Nazi Germany I get a request in the mail for money to work for gun control at a time when all the ideal guns I have been reading about and investigating to buy for self defense and well regulated militia work in case of such need are California illegal. Will the real gun nuts please stand up! Seems I am supposed to donate to grease the rails to my very own gas chamber. All the guns, it would seem, are owned by the wrong side.

My moral dilemma then, is that I think liberals should rethink this: Personally I have somehow persuaded myself that I would rather have a gun to protect myself from someone who has made it his or her intention to kill me with a gun than not have one in such a situation. I know there is very little likelihood of such a scenario ever playing out, but still. Where did I go wrong? To be or not to be, is a philosophical question I think has deep application here. Trump makes the question arise for me.

Talk about nuts, I can buy a Gen 3 Glock 19 but not a Gen 5 which has valued improvements but essentially the same. The best 22 pistol is cal illegal because the parts are not individually serial number stamped. You can buy other 22s, just not the one that is considered the best. I understand conservative rage at liberals thinking they know what should and should not be legal when they have majority rule. Liberals are not opposed to shooting when it comes to shooting themselves in the foot.

I also believe there would be millions more people voting Democrat were it not for this issue. I also think that if there were millions more people voting Democrat we would in time not have the kind of gun violence we do.
 

SmCaudata

Senior member
Oct 8, 2006
551
572
136
Cali laws are silly. They don't do anything meaningful.

I would go so far as to say things like high capacity magazine limits and such also do very little. The vast majority of gun deaths and crimes are committed with a handgun with fewer than 10 shots fired.

Sensible gun legislation would be to require registration, close all loopholes for getting around background checks, and actually hold dealerships and individuals accountable for going around the laws. The bast majority of shops that fail to adhere to background check laws face no actual penalties. Most of the time when inspectors recommend sanctions, nothing happens.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
27,109
1,885
126
Cali laws are silly. They don't do anything meaningful.

I would go so far as to say things like high capacity magazine limits and such also do very little. The vast majority of gun deaths and crimes are committed with a handgun with fewer than 10 shots fired.

Sensible gun legislation would be to require registration, close all loopholes for getting around background checks, and actually hold dealerships and individuals accountable for going around the laws. The bast majority of shops that fail to adhere to background check laws face no actual penalties. Most of the time when inspectors recommend sanctions, nothing happens.
I'd like to see a handgun ban over an AWB as well, because that's where the numbers are. But if we do go the AWB route, I'd rather have all semi-auto arms regulated, not just specific rifles (because inevitably there will be a loophole of some kind).

I remember a news story about one shop in illinois, I think?, being responsible for sales of a ridiculous number of firearms used in crimes. They stuck to the literal letter of the law, but not its intent. If you weren't eligible to purchase a firearm, this shop would tell you only someone meeting [insert criteria] could purchase a firearm, hint hint wink wink.
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
7,149
2,330
136
Beats me...
All my liberal friends, from millennial to middle age like guns and are constantly itching to go to the gun range.

I'm in NY and my circles cover everywhere from Trumpville LI to NYC to upstate.

Just saw on instagram where one of my most liberal friends took their daughter shooting for the first time firing everything from AR's to shotguns.

I've had co workers with unreported family heirlooms that many would consider arsenals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JockoJohnson
Nov 29, 2006
14,453
2,145
126
Yeah as a liberal i want to get a gun. Haven't yet, but have researched. But as a "not conservatard", i understand the need for regulations and don't dismiss them away as an attack on my freedumb. But i have wanted one more so, since Trumpies became a thing. Maybe it was their secret plan all along to get liberals to stop gun control regulation.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,631
7,692
126
I'm a liberal who owns guns and has always supported 2a rights. I believe that most gun control laws are ineffective because they don't address the real problem associated with gun violence, which is unregulated gun sales that allows guns to get into the hands of criminals and those with mental health issues. Conservative nutters use the 'liberal wanna take our guns!' fearmongering in order to intentionally avoid fixing that problem, because many of them profit from that largely un-regulated gun trade.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,698
1,009
126
Last night on the NBC nightly news they had an episode about airport security, that mentioned (among other things) the number of handguns in luggage (carry on and checked) is way up, that over 80% of those guns so seized were loaded, and that the general response was "I forgot it was there."

We have to seriously reconsider the argument that the right to possess intrinsically deadly weapons is god-given to each and every negligent moron in the US. Part of this would be to revert to clear language of the Second Amendment in that the states can have well regulated militias.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
11,820
6,269
136
I'm a liberal who owns guns and has always supported 2a rights. I believe that most gun control laws are ineffective because they don't address the real problem associated with gun violence, which is unregulated gun sales that allows guns to get into the hands of criminals and those with mental health issues. Conservative nutters use the 'liberal wanna take our guns!' fearmongering in order to intentionally avoid fixing that problem, because many of them profit from that largely un-regulated gun trade.
Sounds like you think improving the background check system and/or adding things like red flag laws would fix the problem. While I support those measures, they aren't going to be terribly effective. They may help, a little.

The problem is simply this: there are too many guns in America. We have 1.2 guns per person here, while a typical European country has 1 gun per 10 people.

The problem with that is twofold. First, anyone with criminal intent who wants a firearm is going to find someone to sell/give/loan it to him, or else they can steal one from someone's house or car. They don't need to buy a firearm from a licensed dealer, either at a shop or at a gun show.

Second, all these guns floating around increases the likelihood of suicides as well as heat of the moment shootings by those who had no criminal intent when they acquired the gun.

The only thing that could ever be effective is what Beta O'Rourke suggested: mandatory buy backs. I absolutely do not support this because of the civil unrest on the political right which would result.

Sooner or later we're going to have to face the fact there is no politically viable solution to this problem. This is why I rarely comment about gun control on this forum. I tend to favor discussing problems which can actually be solved. The hard truth is, the gun lobby and its backers, including especially the firearms industry, have already won this fight.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
67,805
2,920
126
Against the 2nd, but this is a unique point in History where having a Gun may become essential. Just get Trained/Informed if you choose to do so. If we are contemplating the potential of Civil War, then proper Clothing and Armour would also be a good investment. Get Fit too.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
16,631
2,154
126
Against the 2nd, but this is a unique point in History where having a Gun may become essential. Just get Trained/Informed if you choose to do so. If we are contemplating the potential of Civil War, then proper Clothing and Armour would also be a good investment. Get Fit too.
Isn't the prime reason for the 2nd exactly the reason your using here? Are you saying the second amendment sucked until you needed it, or that it still sucks but it might it might work out for you now?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,631
7,692
126
Isn't the prime reason for the 2nd exactly the reason your using here? Are you saying the second amendment sucked until you needed it, or that it still sucks but it might it might work out for you now?
You have your cause and effect mixed up. Given that one political side is openly threatening to use their guns to oppress the other side, it only makes sense for that other side to re-evaluate its position on the 2a. Not because it might work out for them, but for their own self-defense.
And BTW, the 'prime reason' for the 2a is national security. The 2a even states this. Only morons believe their little peashooters and ragtag militias stand a chance against the govt's organized military might.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,631
7,692
126
Sounds like you think improving the background check system and/or adding things like red flag laws would fix the problem. While I support those measures, they aren't going to be terribly effective. They may help, a little.

The problem is simply this: there are too many guns in America. We have 1.2 guns per person here, while a typical European country has 1 gun per 10 people.

The problem with that is twofold. First, anyone with criminal intent who wants a firearm is going to find someone to sell/give/loan it to him, or else they can steal one from someone's house or car. They don't need to buy a firearm from a licensed dealer, either at a shop or at a gun show.

Second, all these guns floating around increases the likelihood of suicides as well as heat of the moment shootings by those who had no criminal intent when they acquired the gun.

The only thing that could ever be effective is what Beta O'Rourke suggested: mandatory buy backs. I absolutely do not support this because of the civil unrest on the political right which would result.

Sooner or later we're going to have to face the fact there is no politically viable solution to this problem. This is why I rarely comment about gun control on this forum. I tend to favor discussing problems which can actually be solved. The hard truth is, the gun lobby and its backers, including especially the firearms industry, have already won this fight.
While the issue with what to do with the surplus guns already in private ownership is certainly problematic, I'm confident there would be fewer guns if the gun trade were more strictly regulated.
 
Nov 8, 2012
17,602
3,395
126
Cali laws are silly. They don't do anything meaningful.

I would go so far as to say things like high capacity magazine limits and such also do very little. The vast majority of gun deaths and crimes are committed with a handgun with fewer than 10 shots fired.

Sensible gun legislation would be to require registration, close all loopholes for getting around background checks, and actually hold dealerships and individuals accountable for going around the laws. The bast majority of shops that fail to adhere to background check laws face no actual penalties. Most of the time when inspectors recommend sanctions, nothing happens.


Shhhhhhh.... Don't talk sensible gun reform. Froth at the mouth and declare that all deaths would immediately stop if we just outlaw those dang assault rifles that make up < 1% of gun-deaths.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
5,999
4,038
136
The horse has already left the stable, the stable has burned down, and there's a KFC-Taco Bell operating in its place. Those stable doors aren't there to lock.

It's way too late to worry about the number of guns. It's also going to be near impossible to actually do anything about criminals getting guns. If you want a gun but can't get a gun legally, there are other options. And no amount of laws matter to people who break laws. Adding one more or 20 more is irrelevant.

Besides, it's not really the guns, it's the mental health of the people with guns that matters. That's a much bigger issue that should be at the top of the list of problems that our entire society/country/culture should work towards correcting, but it is partisan now. Immense wealth inequality and its inherent destruction of society is deemed "good" or at worst benign by a majority of people wondering why our society/country/culture is tearing itself apart.

Our society is tearing itself apart because it's in the throes of cognitive dissonance - that immense wealth inequality is good, and that the majority of people barely scraping by in good times is also good. That people with hundreds of millions of dollars don't have enough yet and want billions of dollars is good, and that people making $8.00 an hour 40 hours a week is a good thing because if they made more money, that would be bad...because reasons. That giving rich people with all the power more money is good, but giving hard working but poor people any more money and power is bad. There's only so much mental gymnastics that can be performed before the mind simply stops functioning. And it's happening at a societal level...and has been for 40+ years now.

Most gun laws would have zero affect on mentally unhinged people in a society tearing itself apart because of immense wealth inequality. And we can't have any conversation that addresses that, because of conservative cancel culture that immediately goes into operation anytime any debate about our society/country/culture has with tearing itself apart through immense wealth inequality. We can't talk about the immense wealth inequality because to criticize that makes you a socialist communist America-hating traitor who should love it or leave it.

The horse has left the building. And the horse is only dangerous because the people doing the active tearing apart of this country are happy to let the horse run about if that gets the topic off them tearing our society apart. They are more than happy to have people focus on the loud shiny scary things, rather than their digging, tearing, and destruction of our society/country/culture for their own benefit.
 

repoman0

Diamond Member
Jun 17, 2010
3,063
1,322
136
Agreed with the OP. Guns are pretty much at the bottom of the list of issues I care about and Democrats throw away a shit ton of would be votes by making it a big issue. Guns are part of this country and it’s way too late to stop it. Plus as others have pointed out, they may be needed within our lifetimes.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,489
3,250
126
Shhhhhhh.... Don't talk sensible gun reform. Froth at the mouth and declare that all deaths would immediately stop if we just outlaw those dang assault rifles that make up < 1% of gun-deaths.
Funny how easily you can see when liberals react out of irrational fear and are completely blind when you do it. I note in this thread that a number of liberal thinkers support rational gun laws and I don't disagree with anything you said in your post. Certainly there are some liberals, I'm thinking the ones who wrote and pasted California gun regulations, who lack even rudimentary common sense.

The problem I have identified for a long time now is what a gun represents to the beholder, either protection or being assaulted. I can't imagine why anyone who is willing to defend himself with arms against armed assailants would want to give up that protection or why anybody reliant of the protection of the police would relish the thought that so many people have guns. Millions of people live everyday without personal protection, especially in large cities and they seem more than willing to exercise their own personal interests over those who are armed in part for protection. It strikes me as fundamentally unjust to ask those who own guns for that and other reasons to disarm. They could only react to that as a cave man would if you tried to take his club. I would say that self defense is a human right. That what can defend can offend is another and complicated issue.
 

MtnMan

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2004
4,244
2,210
136
I'd like to see a handgun ban over an AWB as well, because that's where the numbers are. But if we do go the AWB route, I'd rather have all semi-auto arms regulated, not just specific rifles (because inevitably there will be a loophole of some kind).

I remember a news story about one shop in illinois, I think?, being responsible for sales of a ridiculous number of firearms used in crimes. They stuck to the literal letter of the law, but not its intent. If you weren't eligible to purchase a firearm, this shop would tell you only someone meeting [insert criteria] could purchase a firearm, hint hint wink wink.
Always amused at the bad 'semi-auto' rhetoric. A semi-auto works by one trigger pull equal one round fired. A revolver works as a semi-auto. Pull the trigger... bang. Pull it again... bang.

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Then we go down the path of the UK, where even knives are tightly regulated, and there is a push to ban all 'pointy' knives. Murder rates in the UK are not down, in fact they are growing, even with very strict gun laws.

I own guns, I have a concealed carry permit, and I carry. To obtain my CC permit I had to demonstrate competency with a firearm, and pass a test regarding the laws regarding carrying and self defense. I will defend my life, safety, home, and family with lethal force.

I get very tired of many who claim it is a god given right, or a constitutional right and cannot be infringed in any way. That is bullshit. We also have the 1st Amendment that guarantees freedom of speech. Well take that freedom and threaten the life of the president and see how that works out.

Rights are not a freebee, they come with responsibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elfear

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
67,805
2,920
126
Isn't the prime reason for the 2nd exactly the reason your using here? Are you saying the second amendment sucked until you needed it, or that it still sucks but it might it might work out for you now?
It has helped to cause this scenario. An Armed society is more prone to Extreme Violence. When the Armed portion of Society becomes convinced they would be better off without the existence of other portions, then Pacifism becomes foolishness.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
27,986
2,524
126
Agreed with the OP. Guns are pretty much at the bottom of the list of issues I care about and Democrats throw away a shit ton of would be votes by making it a big issue. Guns are part of this country and it’s way too late to stop it. Plus as others have pointed out, they may be needed within our lifetimes.
You mean this? You envision what? You will need a gun to defend yourself against who/what? Nutters attacking you or your community? What is your fantasy here?
 

balloonshark

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2008
4,407
844
126
You have your cause and effect mixed up. Given that one political side is openly threatening to use their guns to oppress the other side, it only makes sense for that other side to re-evaluate its position on the 2a. Not because it might work out for them, but for their own self-defense.
And BTW, the 'prime reason' for the 2a is national security. The 2a even states this. Only morons believe their little peashooters and ragtag militias stand a chance against the govt's organized military might.
What's insane to me is supporting a party because of their stance on the 2a who also happens to be the party that loves trillion+ dollar military budgets and giving the police surplus military vehicles. Most who support the 2a do it because of fear of an oppressive government they are enabling. Talk about irony.
 

SmCaudata

Senior member
Oct 8, 2006
551
572
136
What's insane to me is supporting a party because of their stance on the 2a who also happens to be the party that loves trillion+ dollar military budgets and giving the police surplus military vehicles. Most who support the 2a do it because of fear of an oppressive government they are enabling. Talk about irony.
The Rebpublicans have mastered the ability to get people to vote against their interests for decades.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
27,986
2,524
126
Happiness is a warm, yes it is... gun! [/irony//sarcasm spasm]
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,106
13,041
136
You mean this? You envision what? You will need a gun to defend yourself against who/what? Nutters attacking you or your community? What is your fantasy here?
I'll go with that. Putin loves the NRA- the fear mongering, the hatred, the divisiveness & millions of armed & gaslit Americans thinking they'll have to shoot each other, because Freedumb.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY